WASHINGTON - Stating that Pakistan is confronted with a 'dangerous situation as it confronts with spreading militant influence, the top US diplomat dealing with the Pak-Afghan region said Sunday the recent developments in Swat should serve as a 'huge wake-up call. That is not in the Tribal Areas. That is 100 miles from Islamabad, Special Envoy HolBrooke said in an interview with CNN as he voiced his concern over the Swat deal. And for it (Swat) to fall under the realm of such murderous people preaching such hateful philosophies is really extraordinary. And we are concerned about it, he said on the networks GPS programme hosted by prominent journalist Fareed Zakaria, an Indian-American. But I would draw your attention to the fact that the day before yesterday the chief spokesman of the Taliban in the Swat area publicly renounced the part of the deal in which theyre supposed to lay down their arms, he said. At the same time, Holbrooke disagreed with security expert David Kilcullens projection that Pakistan could collapse in six months if the situation did not improve immediately. Ill let him (Kilcullen) speak for himself, Holbrooke replied when asked to comment on the current situation in the light of the experts suggestions. Replying to a question, he said, We work with (Pakistan Army Chief) General (Ashfaq) Kayani and his colleagues on the basis of a reasonable assumption that they are absolutely sincere in their efforts to take on the militants. However, all of us have said - and I dont think there is anything improper about saying it - that the Pakistani Army has traditionally been arrayed in a conventional deployment in the east, against its historic adversary and neighbour, India. And that I believe - and I think my colleagues in the military would agree, General (David) Petraeus, the head of US Central Command), Admiral (Mike) Mullen, chief of the joint staff - that they need more resources in the West. One of the things we think the Pakistanis ought to do is to strengthen the famous Frontier Corps, a group that was set up by the British in the colonial era and is now part of the Pakistani military structure, but has not been equipped with modern weapons and needs training for what is called counter-insurgency. Its a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. He was pointedly asked who was running the national security policy of Pakistan - President Asiaf Ali Zardari or General Kayani? I think the clear answer is that President Zardari is the president, and General Kayani is the chief of staff of the army. In Pakistans tradition and its complex arrangements of power, like any government, the power is distributed under the president. And the army has played a very powerful role, Holbrooke replied. General Kayani has said repeatedly - and I take him completely at his word. Hes a sincere and intelligent and decent person. He has said repeatedly that he does not wish his military forces to get involved in political issues. And as I said, I really take him at his word on that. QUESTION: Is the democratically-elected government - does the president, though, have the kind of power and legitimacy that would allow him to act? In a Wall Street Journal article that was largely an interview with you, there was a quote from President Zardari saying, I am losing my country. I am losing support in my country. Is it possible for this government to deliver in Pakistan? HOLBROOKE: Youve raised a critical issue. Im not sure what was implied by the phrase 'losing Pakistan. I think he gave that interview at a time right after this intense political confrontation, which came to a climax on the weekend of March 15, 16. That was a near-run thing, Fareed, as you know. There were over a million people on the streets of Lahore and Islamabad. There was a threat of violence. There was a threat of assassination. There was - some people thought there might be military intervention. And I think the important thing to point out is that that particular crisis, that confrontation between President Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, who is the senior political figure in the Punjab, was resolved peacefully. Had it not been resolved peacefully, you and I would be having this conversation today under very different circumstances. It was very dangerous thing, and I think passing it was a positive step. But Im not going to pretend that the situation in Pakistan is not difficult. It is very difficult. I can think of no other place in the world where history hangs more heavily over the situation, and current economic conditions makes it more difficult in Pakistan. And I would say one other thing. Pakistan really matters to the national security of the United States. In its western areas along the border, the so-called Tribal Areas, you have people who committed 9/11, who attacked Mumbai, who attacked Islamabad, who killed Benazir Bhutto, and without any doubt at all are planning attacks on the United States and our allies, as well as the Government of Pakistan, as we speak. In his appearance, Holbrooke underscored that it is for the first time Pakistan, India and the United States are facing 'a common threat, a common challenge and a common task because of this. So, we need more resources. Senator (John) Kerry (Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee) and (Ranking Republican) Senator (Richard) Lugar in the Senate and Congressman (Howard) Berman, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs are putting in a bill for $1.5 billion of aid for the next five years, each year. It should deal with the economic and social issues in the tribal areas. The Obama Administration pledged one billion dollars 'in quick aid at last weeks Tokyo conference of Friends of Pakistan, he said, adding that the US assistance requires congressional approval.